The Tripura High Court has significantly enhanced compensation in a motor accident claim by recognizing the lifelong financial burden of amputation, including the cost of a custom prosthetic limb, attendant care, and future mobility needs. This judgment provides critical guidance on quantifying non-pecuniary losses and reconstructing compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sri Sadhan Das, a Government of Tripura Sports Officer, suffered catastrophic injuries in a road accident on 15.11.2013 when a TATA truck (Registration No. TRL-3670) collided with him from behind at Netaji Chowmohani, Bishramganj-Sabroom Road. The accident resulted in the amputation of his right leg above the knee and severe degloving injuries to his left foot and ankle.
Key Facts
- The appellant was 56 years, 7 months, and 23 days old at the time of the accident on 15.11.2013.
- He was immediately taken to Melaghar Hospital, then referred to G.B.P. Hospital, Agartala, and subsequently to SSKM Hospital, Kolkata, and finally admitted to Fortis Hospital, Kolkata on the same day.
- At Fortis Hospital, he underwent surgery for right leg amputation above knee and debridement of degloving wound on left foot (15.11.2013 to 22.11.2013).
- He was readmitted to TMC & Dr. BRAM Teaching Hospital, Hapania, Agartala from 23.11.2013 to 30.11.2013 (first spell) and again from 14.01.2014 to 28.01.2014 (second spell) for skin grafting.
- He remained bedridden for approximately six months.
- He was issued a custom-made T/F Prosthesis (artificial limb) on 18.05.2014, costing Rs. 1,26,100/-, documented under Exhibit 10(LXiii).
- He traveled to Kolkata twice: first on 15.11.2013 as a stretcher case, and again on 18.05.2014 with two attendants, returning to Agartala on 31.05.2014.
- He consumed 241 days of commuted leave and 4 days of casual leave for treatment; no earned leave was used.
- He retired on superannuation on 31.03.2019 and is currently receiving full pension.
- He examined himself as PW-1 and a State Disability Board doctor as PW-2.
- The respondent, Smt. Namita Rani Das Lodh (owner of the truck), examined herself as OPW-1.
Procedural History
- 15.11.2013: Road accident occurred.
- 2014: Motor Accident Claim Petition filed before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.4, West Tripura (TS(MAC) 50 of 2014).
- 17.11.2022: Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.15,29,985/-.
- 13.03.2026: Appeal heard before the Tripura High Court.
- 16.05.2026: Judgment delivered.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought enhancement of compensation on the following grounds:
- Inadequate award for cost of prosthetic limb.
- Failure to award cost of return airfare from Kolkata.
- Underpayment for attendant expenses during hospitalization.
- Insufficient compensation for conveyance and local transport.
- Lack of award for lifelong attendant care.
- Underestimation of non-pecuniary damages.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant: Argued that the Tribunal overlooked critical expenses and failed to apply precedents from Dinesh Singh and Ankur Kapoor regarding prosthetic costs, attendant care, and loss of amenities. Emphasized lifelong dependency due to amputation.
Respondents (Insurer & Owner): Contended that the Tribunal’s award was adequate, challenged the authenticity of medicine vouchers (Exts. 10(LIX), 10(LX), etc.), and argued that no loss of income occurred as the appellant received full salary and pension.
The Genesis
The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TRL-3670 truck, owned by the respondents and insured by New India Assurance Company Ltd. The claimant, a government servant, was not employed in a high-risk occupation but suffered irreversible physical trauma that permanently altered his mobility and quality of life.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in failing to award adequate compensation for the cost of a custom prosthetic limb, lifetime attendant care, return airfare, and attendant expenses during hospitalization, and whether the quantum of non-pecuniary damages was commensurate with the severity of permanent disability.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel relied on Dinesh Singh v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2014 Legal Eagle 337) and Ankur Kapoor v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017 Legal Eagle (SC) 1005) to argue that:
- The cost of a custom prosthetic limb (Rs.1,26,100/-) must be fully compensated as a direct consequence of the accident.
- Lifetime attendant care is a foreseeable consequence of above-knee amputation and warrants a lump sum award.
- Return airfare and attendant expenses during hospitalization in Kolkata were omitted despite documentary evidence.
- The Tribunal’s award of Rs.20,000/- for attendants was inadequate given 22 days in Kolkata and 23 days in Agartala.
- Loss of amenities and pain and suffering must be assessed in light of the victim’s age and permanent disability.
For the Respondent
Counsel contended that:
- The Tribunal correctly rejected unverified medicine vouchers lacking dates or prescriptions.
- The appellant received full salary and pension, so no loss of income occurred.
- The Tribunal’s award of Rs.5,00,000/- for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities was adequate.
- No evidence was led regarding the need for a second prosthetic limb.
- The claim for return airfare and attendant costs was speculative and unsupported by vouchers.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and the Tribunal’s reasoning. It noted that while the Tribunal correctly rejected unauthenticated medicine vouchers, it failed to account for several quantifiable, documented expenses directly linked to the accident.
"It appears that learned Tribunal has missed to give further award to the petitioner on certain aspects, and therefore, some amount of compensation is required to be enhanced further."
The Court held that the prosthetic limb was not merely a medical device but a necessity for basic mobility and dignity. The cost of Rs.1,26,100/- was duly documented and must be compensated in full.
Regarding attendant costs, the Court rejected the Tribunal’s lump sum of Rs.20,000/- as inadequate. It calculated:
- Rs.44,000/- for two attendants at Kolkata for 22 days (Rs.2,000/day).
- Rs.23,000/- for attendants during 23 days of hospitalization in Agartala (Rs.1,000/day).
- Total: Rs.67,000/-, against Rs.20,000/- awarded - hence an additional Rs.47,000/-.
For conveyance, the Court awarded Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- additional) for eight airport trips and four local journeys in Agartala.
The Court further recognized that the appellant, having lost one leg above the knee, would require lifelong assistance. Citing the irreversible nature of the injury and the appellant’s age (57), it awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as a lump sum for future attendant care, noting:
"He has already lost one of his legs. Therefore, it is obvious that for the rest of life he will not be able to pursue his daily livelihood by himself without assistance of others and at least one attendant will be required for taking his care for the rest of his life."
The Court declined to enhance the Rs.5,00,000/- awarded for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities, distinguishing the case from Dinesh Singh on the basis of age and marital status - the claimant was 57 and married, unlike the 24-year-old unmarried claimant in that case.
The Court also awarded Rs.8,000/- for return airfare from Kolkata, matching the documented outbound cost.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Tripura High Court enhanced the compensation by Rs.2,92,000/-, comprising:
- Rs.1,26,100/- for the custom prosthetic limb.
- Rs.8,000/- for return airfare from Kolkata.
- Rs.47,000/- additional for attendant expenses.
- Rs.10,000/- additional for conveyance.
- Rs.1,00,000/- for lifelong attendant care.
The respondent insurer, New India Assurance Company Ltd., is directed to pay the enhanced amount of Rs.2,92,000/- within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment, along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition (2014) until actual payment.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Prosthetic Devices Are Not Optional - They Are Essential
- Practitioners must insist on full compensation for custom prosthetics, orthotics, and mobility aids, even if replacement is not yet due.
- Documentation of cost, medical necessity, and manufacturer details is critical - courts will uphold such claims when substantiated.
Lifetime Care Requires Lump Sum Awards
- Permanent disability involving limb loss or paralysis justifies a lump sum for lifelong attendant care, even without expert testimony on longevity.
- Courts will infer necessity from the nature of injury and the claimant’s age - no need to prove exact future duration.
Attendant Costs Must Be Calculated Per Day, Not Lump Sum
- Avoid relying on arbitrary lump sums for attendants.
- Calculate daily costs (lodging, food) for each hospitalization period, including out-of-town treatment.
- Include return travel for attendants if they accompanied the claimant.
Non-Pecuniary Damages Are Age-Sensitive
- Awards for pain, suffering, and loss of amenities must be calibrated to the claimant’s age, marital status, and life expectancy.
- A 57-year-old married claimant is not entitled to the same quantum as a 24-year-old unmarried victim.
Conveyance and Airfare Must Be Fully Reimbursed
- Courts will award return airfare even if vouchers are incomplete, if outbound cost is documented.
- Local transport and airport trips should be itemized and claimed separately.
Documentation Trumps Speculation
- Unverified medicine vouchers with no dates or prescriptions will be rejected.
- But documented, specific expenses - prosthetics, airfare, attendant days - will be upheld even if not fully itemized.
